Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T02:19:26.555Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Synthesizing quantitative and qualitative information on multiple comparisons of health interventions to facilitate knowledge transfer: an example from an EUnetHTA multi-HTA

Part of: Special Collection - Methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 February 2022

Giulio Formoso Open the ORCID record for Giulio Formoso [Opens in a new window] ,
Ana Jeroncic Open the ORCID record for Ana Jeroncic [Opens in a new window] ,
Laura Bonvicini ,
Olivera Djuric ,
Judit Erdos ,
Annamaria Pezzarossi  and
Luciana Ballini
Giulio Formoso*
Affiliation:
Clinical Governance Unit, Local Health Authority – IRCCS of Reggio Emilia. Via Amendola 2, 42122 Reggio Emilia, Italy
Ana Jeroncic
Affiliation:
Department of Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia
Laura Bonvicini
Affiliation:
Epidemiology Unit, Local Health Authority – IRCCS of Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy
Olivera Djuric
Affiliation:
Epidemiology Unit, Local Health Authority – IRCCS of Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy Center for Environmental, Nutritional and Genetic Epidemiology (CREAGEN), Section of Public Health, Department of Biomedical, Metabolic and Neural Sciences, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy
Judit Erdos
Affiliation:
HTA Austria – Austrian Institute for Health Technology Assessment GmbH, Vienna, Austria
Annamaria Pezzarossi
Affiliation:
Epidemiology Unit, Local Health Authority – IRCCS of Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy
Luciana Ballini
Affiliation:
Local Health Authority, Modena, Italy Regional Health and Social Care Authority, Emilia-Romagna, Italy
*
Author for correspondence: Giulio Formoso, E-mail: giulio.formoso@ausl.re.it
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

Presenting an approach to synthesize quantitative and qualitative information from systematic reviews of multiple health interventions.

Methods

Within the context of an EUnetHTA multi-health technology assessment of twenty-three surgical techniques, we developed synthetic single tables, using color gradients and abbreviations, with information on which technologies had been compared, estimates of the size of differences for available comparisons, their clinical relevance, and certainty of the related evidence.

Results

The proposed methodology provided, through a single depiction, information normally included in multiple figures/tables such as network plots, league tables, and summary of findings tables.

Conclusion

Transferring information on benefits, risks, and certainty of the available evidence on health interventions may be challenging, especially when assessing multiple treatments: more pieces of information need to be integrated in order to show an overall picture for each of the chosen outcomes, and usual reporting tools may be targeted to researchers more than to different kinds of decision makers. While more in-depth layers of information can always be added to satisfy needs of different audiences, the proposed tools could favor a quick interpretation of articulated scientific data by both decision makers and researchers.

Keywords

Information synthesisSystematic reviewsKnowledge transferMultiple interventionsClinical relevance
Type
Method
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 38 , Issue 1 , 2022 , e20
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Chaimani, A, Caldwell, DM, Li, T, Higgins, JPT, Salanti, G. Chapter 11: Undertaking network meta-analyses. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Second Edition Available at https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-11#:~:text=Network%20meta%2Danalysis%20is%20a,across%20a%20network%20of%20studies.&text=Domain%2Dspecific%20assessments%20are%20combined,overall%20confidence%20in%20the%20evidence (last accessed: Sept 20, 2021).Google Scholar
Chaimani, A, Higgins, JPT, Mavridis, D, Spyridonos, P, Salanti, G. Graphical tools for network meta-analysis in STATA. PLoS One. 2013;8:e76654, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0076654. (last accessed: Sept 20, 2021).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schunemann, H, Higgins, JPT; Vist, GE, Glasziou, P, Akl, EA, Skoetz, N, et al. Completing ‘Summary of findings’ tables and grading the certainty of the evidence. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Second Edition. doi:10.1002/9781119536604.ch14 (last accessed: Sept 20, 2021).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yepes-Nunez, JJ, Li, SA, Guyatt, G, Jack, SM, Brozek, JL, Beyene, J, et al. Development of the summary of findings table for network meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;115:1–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
EUnetHTA OTCA27 Authoring Team. Comparative effectiveness of surgical techniques and devices for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Collaborative Assessment. Diemen (The Netherlands): EUnetHTA; 2021. Report No.: OTCA27. Available from: https://www.eunethta.euGoogle Scholar
Hultcrantz, M, Rind, D, Akl, EA, Treweek, S, Mustafa, RA, Iorio, A, et al. The GRADE working group clarifies the construct of certainty of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;87:4–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaeschke, R, Singer, J, Guyatt, GH. Measurement of health status: Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10:407–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wells, G, Beaton, D, Shea, B, Boers, M, Simon, L, Strand, V, et al. Minimal clinically important differences: Review of methods. J Rheumatol. 2001;28:406–12.Google ScholarPubMed
See https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/colour-vision-deficiency/ (accessed 2021 Nov 23).Google Scholar
Formoso, G, Rizzini, P, Bassi, M, Bonfanti, P, Rizzardini, G, Campomori, A, et al. Knowledge transfer: What drug information would specialist doctors need to support their clinical practice? Results of a survey and of three focus groups in Italy. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016;16:115. doi:10.1186/s12911-016-0355-7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Formoso, G, Marata, AM, Magrini, N. Social marketing: Should it be used to promote evidence-based information? Soc Sci Med. 2007;64:949–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R. What clinical information do doctors need? BMJ. 1996;313:1062–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Formoso et al. supplementary material

Figure S1

Download Formoso et al. supplementary material(File)
File 99.3 KB